RegGuheert wrote:It appears that the DOE is misallocating funds here based on their own definition:Both ammonia and hydrogen are gaseous under standard conditions. Am I to understand that EVERY fuel is a LIQUID fuel since it becomes a liquid at some temperature?

They're presumably getting the N2 from air and the H2 from water, so I don't see a conflict.

Sure, but they didn't claim otherwise. To repeat what you quoted them as saying, with my annotations:

REFUEL projects will use water [to get H2],molecules from the air [N2], and electricity from renewable sources [electrolysis etc.] to produce high-energy liquid fuels for transportation and other uses.

There is nothing in that which says that every step in one or all projects has to involve liquids, only that liquid fuels are the final result. Now, if you want to claim that the REFUEL acronym's meaning is a bit misleading, fine, but that's often what you get when you try and come up with a phrase that will make an easy-to-remember acronym.

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA wrote:There is nothing in that which says that every step in one or all projects has to involve liquids, only that liquid fuels are the final result. Now, if you want to claim that the REFUEL acronym's meaning is a bit misleading, fine, but that's often what you get when you try and come up with a phrase that will make an easy-to-remember acronym.

Please. So tell me, how do you make a liquid fuel from ammonia? You cool it.

If there is a pathway that produces a liquid fuel from ammonia, then they should specify what that is. Otherwise, I stand by my criticism: they are using funding targeted at liquid fuels to make gaseous fuels. As I have said previously, we will likely need fuels which are liquid up to about 50C for most aviation applications.

GRA wrote:There is nothing in that which says that every step in one or all projects has to involve liquids, only that liquid fuels are the final result. Now, if you want to claim that the REFUEL acronym's meaning is a bit misleading, fine, but that's often what you get when you try and come up with a phrase that will make an easy-to-remember acronym.

Please. So tell me, how do you make a liquid fuel from ammonia? You cool it.

If there is a pathway that produces a liquid fuel from ammonia, then they should specify what that is. Otherwise, I stand by my criticism: they are using funding targeted at liquid fuels to make gaseous fuels. As I have said previously, we will likely need fuels which are liquid up to about 50C for most aviation applications.

You seem to be the only one in doubt of what they mean or intend to do, but I'm sure if you find the grant applications they will explain exactly what the processes are. Personally I don't care, as I'm clear in my own mind what end result they're aiming at.

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA wrote:There is nothing in that which says that every step in one or all projects has to involve liquids, only that liquid fuels are the final result. Now, if you want to claim that the REFUEL acronym's meaning is a bit misleading, fine, but that's often what you get when you try and come up with a phrase that will make an easy-to-remember acronym.

Please. So tell me, how do you make a liquid fuel from ammonia? You cool it.

If there is a pathway that produces a liquid fuel from ammonia, then they should specify what that is. Otherwise, I stand by my criticism: they are using funding targeted at liquid fuels to make gaseous fuels. As I have said previously, we will likely need fuels which are liquid up to about 50C for most aviation applications.

You seem to be the only one in doubt of what they mean or intend to do, but I'm sure if you find the grant applications they will explain exactly what the processes are. Personally I don't care, as I'm clear in my own mind what end result they're aiming at.

You seem like the only one going to the nth degree of benefit of doubt, in order to say they aren't contrary to their stated goal.

GRA wrote:You seem to be the only one in doubt of what they mean or intend to do, but I'm sure if you find the grant applications they will explain exactly what the processes are. Personally I don't care, as I'm clear in my own mind what end result they're aiming at.

So if you are so clear what is intended, why don't you just write it here. Then we'll all know.

DOE wrote:Most liquid fuels used in transportation today are derived from petroleum and burned in internal combustion engines. These energy-dense fuels are currently economical, but they remain partially reliant on imported petroleum and are highly carbon intensive. Alternatives to internal combustion engines, like fuel cells, which convert chemical energy to electricity, have shown promise in vehicle powertrains, but are hindered by inefficiencies in fuel transport and storage. Projects in the Renewable Energy to Fuels Through Utilization of Energy-Dense Liquids (REFUEL) program seek to develop scalable technologies for converting electrical energy from renewable sources into energy-dense carbon-neutral liquid fuels (CNLFs) and back into electricity or hydrogen on demand. REFUEL projects will accelerate the shift to domestically produced transportation fuels, improving American economic and energy security and reducing energy emissions.

Note that the quoted part DIRECTLY excludes hydrogen as an outcome from this project.

DOE wrote:Carbon-neutral liquid fuels as defined by REFUEL are hydrogen-rich and made by converting molecules in the air (nitrogen or carbon dioxide) and hydrogen from water into an energy-carrying liquid using renewable power. While existing fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) use pure hydrogen as a fuel, the limitations of hydrogen storage and transportation have made it difficult and expensive to build transmission, distribution, and refueling infrastructure for mass adoption of these vehicles. The CNLFs of REFUEL address these challenges by using the infrastructure already in use by traditional liquid fuels. Once the CNLF arrives at its point of use, it can be used to generate electricity in a fuel cell or produce hydrogen on demand, greatly reducing transportation and storage costs. REFUEL projects will aid in the development of energy sources that are readily produced and easily transported, like ammonia, while reducing production costs and environmental impact. Projects will enable new, efficient, scalable and cost-effective energy delivery when and where it is needed.

In this paragraph, hydrogen is specifically excluded BY NAME, as seen in the first bolded section. Both hydrogen AND ammonia are excluded by the second bolded section.

As I said, DOE is misallocating these funds by applying them to projects which directly contradict the objectives which they, themselves, have established.

GRA wrote:You seem to be the only one in doubt of what they mean or intend to do, but I'm sure if you find the grant applications they will explain exactly what the processes are. Personally I don't care, as I'm clear in my own mind what end result they're aiming at.

So if you are so clear what is intended, why don't you just write it here. Then we'll all know.

DOE wrote:Most liquid fuels used in transportation today are derived from petroleum and burned in internal combustion engines. These energy-dense fuels are currently economical, but they remain partially reliant on imported petroleum and are highly carbon intensive. Alternatives to internal combustion engines, like fuel cells, which convert chemical energy to electricity, have shown promise in vehicle powertrains, but are hindered by inefficiencies in fuel transport and storage. Projects in the Renewable Energy to Fuels Through Utilization of Energy-Dense Liquids (REFUEL) program seek to develop scalable technologies for converting electrical energy from renewable sources into energy-dense carbon-neutral liquid fuels (CNLFs) and back into electricity or hydrogen on demand. REFUEL projects will accelerate the shift to domestically produced transportation fuels, improving American economic and energy security and reducing energy emissions.

Note that the quoted part DIRECTLY excludes hydrogen as an outcome from this project.

Agreed as far as 'transport and storage', but not as final usage, which it seems to directly allow. See below.

DOE wrote:Carbon-neutral liquid fuels as defined by REFUEL are hydrogen-rich and made by converting molecules in the air (nitrogen or carbon dioxide) and hydrogen from water into an energy-carrying liquid using renewable power. While existing fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) use pure hydrogen as a fuel, the limitations of hydrogen storage and transportation have made it difficult and expensive to build transmission, distribution, and refueling infrastructure for mass adoption of these vehicles. The CNLFs of REFUEL address these challenges by using the infrastructure already in use by traditional liquid fuels. Once the CNLF arrives at its point of use, it can be used to generate electricity in a fuel cell or produce hydrogen on demand, greatly reducing transportation and storage costs. REFUEL projects will aid in the development of energy sources that are readily produced and easily transported, like ammonia, while reducing production costs and environmental impact. Projects will enable new, efficient, scalable and cost-effective energy delivery when and where it is needed.

In this paragraph, hydrogen is specifically excluded BY NAME, as seen in the first bolded section. Both hydrogen AND ammonia are excluded by the second bolded section.

As I said, DOE is misallocating these funds by applying them to projects which directly contradict the objectives which they, themselves, have established.

Thanks for posting all that, and I see that I did somewhat misunderstand the intent of what they're doing, although I agree with the end result. So, AIUI, the intent here isn't solely to come up with renewable liquid fuels, but also (or entirely) to use ammonia (or other) purely for transport and storage, and then convert back (they appear to leave open the possibility of either stationary or on-board conversion) to electricity or H2. I suppose that again brings up the possibility of methanol or some such, with on-board converters. The issues with that were assessed as problematic some years back, but possibly the state of the art has improved now - I haven't been paying attention to methanol for some time.

The program's overall goal is a competitive total cost (including production, transportation, storage, and conversion) of delivered (source-to-use) energy (e.g. converted to motive power for transportation) as opposed to the primary energy stored in chemical form below $0.3/kWh, the price needed to be competitive with other carbon-free delivery methods, as will be discussed in Section B. The source-to-use energy cost (SUE) is defined here as the sum of the fuel production cost (CF), the cost of transportation from production to the user (CT), the cost of any storage (CS), divided by the conversion efficiency (n) to account for any losses during the conversion steps, and the capital cost of fuel conversion (CC).

Then page 4:

Hydrogen compression and, especially, liquefaction incur additional energy losses (up to 10 and 35%, respectively). Incontrast to liquid H2, which boils-off with a rate of 1 – 4% per day depending on the tank, 10 hydrogen storage andtransportation as a compressed gas has very low losses. Therefore, the latter is a more attractive option for long-termstorage (from days to seasonal). Average cost of hydrogen transportation via a 750 mile long pipeline is estimated to be $1– 2/kg H2 or $0.03 – 0.06/kWh,11 which is substantially more expensive than pipeline transportation of gasoline (about$0.025/gal or $0.001/kWh)12 or ammonia ($34/ton per 1000 miles or $0.004/kWh for 750 miles).13

Opportunities for CNLFsThe use of energy-dense liquids, e.g. liquid ammonia or renewable hydrocarbons, with a similar RTE may be an attractivealternative to H2, due to the absence of or low compression losses. Storage and transportation costs can be even lower ifthe carbon-neutral production cost is higher than that of H2. Such CNLFs could be used in appropriately designed fuelcells. Alternatively, the costs of compression and storage, which is the major cost of the H2 refueling station,14 can be reduced by using with CNLFs as hydrogen carriers and the existing liquid fuel infrastructure technologies. An ANL/TIAXanalysis of hydrogen delivery. using liquid hydrogen carriers with a hydrogen content of 6 – 7 wt.%, showed that the carrierhydrogen delivery cost will be lower than liquid or compressed (700 bar) hydrogen.15 CNLFs with higher hydrogen contentwill be even less costly. Some examples of potential CNLFs are presented in the following section. . . .

Page 5:

Modern Haber-Bosch plants, using hydrogen generation by SMR, release about 1.6 – 1.8 ton CO2 per ton of NH3 of whichonly 0.95 ton comes from the SMR process and the rest from heating and pressurization needs.20 Energy consumption forNH3 production using SMR varies from 7.8 to 10.5 MWh per ton of NH3 (including feedstock, which accounts for 80% ofenergy).21 A potentially greener technology option of using hydrogen from water electrolysis requires 9.5 MWh to make 1metric ton NH3 22 (of which 8.9 MWh comes from hydrogen production, assuming 50.2 kWh/kg H2). 23 Solid-stateelectrochemical ammonia synthesis, a possible alternative to the Haber-Bosch process, has potentially lower energy inputand operational pressure and temperature24 thus simplifying the balance of plant, and could be cost competitive as long asthe reaction rate is significantly increased.

Ammonia is in the liquid state below -33 °C or under 15 bar at ambient temperature and has an energy density of 4.25kWh/L. This value is 35% higher than the energy density of liquid hydrogen (in reality the difference is even larger due tolarge energy requirements for H2 liquefaction) and 2.5 times higher than that of hydrogen compressed to 700 bar. It is widelyused as a fertilizer, a refrigerant, and a feedstock for the chemical industry The use of ammonia as a fuel, energy carrierand hydrogen storage material has also been widely discussed. . . .25,26,27

which shows that NH3 boils at 120 degrees F. if pressurized to 286.4 in. psia., using a hell of a lot less energy for pressurization than 5 or 10,000 psia for LH2.

Continuing from page 6:

Another example of a nitrogen-based energy-dense fuel is hydrazine hydrate (N2H4·H2O). It is currently produced byoxidation of ammonia at a large scale (80,000 ton/year globally) and is therefore more expensive than ammonia. However,it has a high energy density (3.56 kWh/L), is easy to handle (freezing point -51.7 °C, flash point 74 °C) and, if low-costsynthetic methods are developed, it may fit the technical targets of this FOA. To accomplish wide-scale implementation ofCNLFs, technological advances in both the production and conversion of this fuel would need to be achieved. An exampleof a non-toxic substitute for hydrazine with low carbon footprint is carbohydrazide (CH6N4O). Carbohydrazide has beenused as a fuel in a fuel cell with an OCV 1.65V.28

In terms of carbon containing CNLFs, there are numerous examples that would fit the definition, such as hydrocarbon fuelssuch as synthetic gasoline or diesel fuel, alcohols, and dimethyl ether., The requirements are that the carbon is directlytaken from the atmosphere or another sustainable CO2 source and that the fuel is produced in a one-pot chemical orelectrochemical process. Current processes for production of synthetic fuels such as Fischer-Tropsch process are multistep,very capital intensive and eventually not economical. Reducing the process complexity may allow increased efficiencyand lower costs. A viable pathway to generate power (e.g. in fuel cells or ICEs as a drop-in fuel) or hydrogen should bedemonstrated or adopted from literature. In addition, carbon containing CNLFs must have the potential to meet the source-to-useenergy cost targets. . . .

Conversion of CNLFs to electricityCNLFs may be converted into useful work after transportation and/or storage either directly or indirectly. In this FOA, directconversion is defined as delivering the fuel to a fuel cell anode without any prior chemical conversion to generate electricitydirectly. Indirect conversion includes fuel that is reformed (cracked) such that hydrogen is stored/delivered at the endpointof the transportation and distribution system for further use in fuel cells. . . .

Finally, from the summary on page 8:

The technical approach of the REFUEL program is to develop novel cost- and energy-efficient technologies for generationof energy-dense liquid fuels from renewable energy, water, and air, and their subsequent conversion to deliverable powerfor transportation and distributed generation.

This approach will allow use of existing liquid fuel transportation technologies for transferring renewable energy from remoteor stranded locations to the end-use customer instead of using electricity or hydrogen (schematically represented in Figure1). Renewable energy such as electricity from solar and wind farms, will be converted to a CNLF (technologies of interestin Category 1), transported by existing methods, and converted via direct (electrochemical in a fuel cell) or indirect (viaintermediate hydrogen extraction) oxidation at the point of use (technologies of interest in Category 2). Conceptually thisprogram aims to minimize system level carbon emissions, and electrical transmission and storage losses, while remainingcost competitive.

The target CNLFs can be indefinitely stored in the liquid state under moderate pressure (up to 20 bar) or moderate cooling(down to -40 °C), can be transported using existing or easily expanded and modified infrastructure, and converted back intoelectricity and/or heat. The conversion products (primarily N2, H2O, and CO2) are not captured and are released to theatmosphere. Fuels containing carbon are acceptable as long as the carbon is taken directly from air or other sustainablesources such as biomass fermentation and not from fossil fuels. . . .

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) announced a call for cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) between national laboratories and industrial partners to address roll-to-roll (R2R) manufacturing challenges that will allow rapid transfer of manufacturing and processing technologies from the lab to the plant floor, resulting in less costly and more energy efficient products entering the marketplace. These efforts will be supported with current and prior year funds. . . .)

The broader solicitation is focused on advanced materials and component development, synthesis and processing methods, and quality control and metrology in the specific areas of:

However, only projects that have a strong likelihood of creating jobs domestically and enabling manufacturing of hydrogen and/or fuel cell technologies are of interest for FCTO funding. CRADAs will require industry to provide at least a 50% cost share, which can be monetary funds or in-kind contributions (e.g., facilities, services, and staff time). . . .

he US Department of Energy (DOE) is honoring additional commitments to 10 previously selected Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) awardees for a total of $20 million. This completes the approval process for projects selected in ARPA-E’s Next-Generation Energy Technologies for Connected and Autonomous On-Road Vehicles (NEXTCAR) (earlier post) and Renewable Energy to Fuels Through Utilization of Energy-Dense Liquids (REFUEL) (earlier post)programs.

Four REFUEL projects are also part of DOE’s Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs . . . .

PGM-free Catalyst and Electrode R&D. 4 projects will leverage the Electrocatalysis Consortium (ElectroCat) to accelerate the development of catalysts made without platinum group metals (PGM-free) for use in fuel cells for transportation.

Advanced Water Splitting Materials. 19 projects will leverage the HydroGEN Consortium to accelerate the development of advanced water-splitting materials for hydrogen production, with an initial focus on advanced electrolytic, photoelectrochemical, and solar thermochemical pathways.

SOFC Prototype System Testing: Applications are being sought under this topic area for prototype system development and field-testing (at a site other than the developer’s facility) of a nominal 250-500kWe rating (system rating near the high end of the range is encouraged) thermally self-sustaining atmospheric or pressurized SOFC system with an average stack operating temperature greater than 500°C.

The SOFC systems will undergo testing to be conducted in accordance with a DOE-approved test plan at a facility mutually agreed upon by the selected applicant and DOE . . . System performance and degradation as well as cost estimates will be compared to established SOFC Program performance metrics to assess progress.

The goal is to test the SOFC technology prototype to the degree necessary for commercial system deployment, for a minimum of 5,000 hours. Proposed concepts should have a TRL of at least 5 at the beginning of the project and TRL 7 at project end. Prototype systems utilizing anode-supported planar cells are not desired under this topic area. Projects will be 24 months in duration.

Core Technology Development: The SOFC Core Technology research topic area will focus on applied laboratory or bench-scale R&D that improves the cost, robustness, reliability, and endurance of SOFC cell, stack, and or balance of plant technology. Applications in this topic area can focus on any SOFC cell, stack, or Balance of Plant (BOP) components. Partnership with an SOFC manufacturer/developer is encouraged. Projects will be 24 months in duration, during which time concepts will be developed and tested. Proposed concepts should have a beginning TRL of 2-4.

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

. . . Hydrogen in the UK is beginning to shift to practical demonstration projects. An ever-growing evidence base has showcased how the costs of hydrogen and its barriers to entry are reducing, such that it now has practical potential to contribute to the decarbonization of the UK’s energy sector.

Despite this, hydrogen has yet to have wide commercial uptake, due in part to a number of barriers where measurement plays a critical role. To accelerate the shift towards the hydrogen economy, these challenges have been identified and prioritized by NPL.

The report “Energy transition: Measurement needs within the hydrogen industry” ranked six challenge areas as high priority:

Material development for fuel cells and electrolyzers, to reduce costs and assess critical degradation mechanisms—extending lifetime and durability is key to the commercialisation of these technologies.

Impact assessment of added odorant to hydrogen to aid leak detection. Measurement of its impact during pipeline transportation and on the end-use application (particularly fuel cell technology) will be important to provide assurance that it will not affect lifetime and durability.

Determination of the blend ratio when hydrogen is mixed with natural gas in the gas grid. Accurate flow rate measurement and validated metering methods are needed to ensure accurate billing of the consumer.

Measurement of the combustion properties of hydrogen, including flame detection and propagation, temperature and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, should it be used for heat applications, to ensure existing and new appliances are suitable for hydrogen.

Assessment of the suitability of existing gas infrastructure and materials for hydrogen transportation. Building an understanding of what adaptations might need to be made to avoid for example air permeation, metal embrittlement and hydrogen leakage.

Validated techniques for hydrogen storage, which will require measurement of the efficiency and capacity of each mechanism, through robust metering, leakage detection and purity analysis to ensure they are optimized for the storage of hydrogen gas. . . .

. . . Four projects have been selected to receive up to $2.4 million for phase 2 research, while an additional $13.5 million is available under a new funding opportunity announcement (FOA) to support SOFC prototype system testing and core technology development (earlier post) [GRA: see upthread].

The four projects advancing to phase 2 were chosen from phase 1 awards made under the FOA Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Innovative Concepts and Core Technology Research Program, which was issued in fiscal year 2015.

The phase 2 projects will include laboratory- and bench-scale research to improve the reliability, robustness, and endurance of SOFC cell and stack technology. The projects are:

Employing Accelerated Test Protocols to Full-Size Cells and Tuning Microstructures to Improve Robustness, Reliability, and Endurance of SOFC — The University of South Carolina will focus on understanding the effects of accelerated testing protocols on material structure and chemistry on electrochemical properties and durability of SOFCs. Accelerated tests will be performed for approximately 200–3,000 hours on full-size cells with hydrogen and simulated system gas, which will translate to steady-state SOFC operation for approximately 2,000–20,000 hours. DOE Funding: $600,000

The joint venture H2 Mobility Deutschland . . . officially opened two new hydrogen refueling stations in Frankfurt and Wiesbaden. The German federal state of Hesse now has a total of five H2 filling stations for fuel cell vehicles. . . .

H2 Mobility commissioned the new hydrogen station in Frankfurt . . . while Daimler AG is the owner of the filling station in Wiesbaden . . . Both stations are located on Shell premises.

With financial support from the German government via its National Innovation Programme for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology (NIP), Germany now has a total of 30 hydrogen refueling stations. Overall, the German government has invested some €1.6 million (US$1.8 million) in the two new stations. By 2018, there should be 100 stations. . . .

Both stations have the capacity to serve 40 FCEVs every day.

At present, Germany has another 27 hydrogen stations in the pipeline or under construction. This year, for example, H2 Mobility and its partner companies are due to unveil filling stations in Kassel, Bremen and Wendlingen. More are planned for the Stuttgart, Karlsruhe and Munich areas. . . .

Ontario is taking a major step forward to electrify the GO rail network. The Canadian province has begun the GO Rail Network Electrification Transit Project Assessment Process. The process builds on public consultations held last year and will assess the environmental impacts of converting core segments of the GO rail network, including the UP Express, from diesel to electric. In tandem with the assessment process, Ontario is also undertaking a feasibility study on the use of hydrogen fuel cells as an alternative technology for electrifying GO rail service and the UP Express. . . .

Ontario is undertaking a $21.3-billion transformation of the GO network, which is the largest commuter rail project in Canada. Ontario is on track to electrify and expand the rail network, and bring more two-way, all-day service to commuters and families by increasing the number of weekly trips from about 1,500 to nearly 6,000 by 2025.

The province has committed $13.5 billion to implement GO RER as part of a $21.3-billion transformation of the GO network from commuter transit to a regional rapid transit system. GO RER involves more than 500 separate projects across 40 municipalities. Improvements to more than 30 GO stations are currently in procurement and planning work is underway with municipal partners on 12 new GO RER stations across the network. . . .

Also GCC:

Ballard’s Protonex subsidiary receives first order for fuel cell system to power commercial UAVs

Ballard Power Systems’ subsidiary Protonex has received an initial order for its fuel cell propulsion system, together with design services, from FlyH2 Aerospace, a South African-based developer of hydrogen fuel cell powered unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for commercial applications. . . .

FlyH2 plans to integrate the Protonex fuel cell system into all three of its aircraft currently in the development pipeline, beginning with the UA Plant prototype drone, followed by its UA Alpha flagship aircraft. UA Plant is expected to be a 30 kilogram (66 lb.) fuel cell-powered agricultural utility aircraft with 9-hour flight endurance.

UA Alpha will be a long-range, long-endurance survey and reconnaissance aircraft designed to carry advanced sensors. Specifications include a wingspan of 8.2 meters (27 feet), maximum cruising altitude of 4,250 meters (14,000 feet) and flight distance of more than 600 kilometers (370 miles). Onboard sensors will survey environmental variables used in the management of fires, pollution, erosion, alien vegetation and plant diseases. In a similar development, FlyH2’s third drone, the UA Gecko, is being designed to monitor physical infrastructure, including roads, bridges, pipelines and powerlines. . . .

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.